You have a physical presence in space. That’s objective. Emphasis on object. Something being objective doesn’t mean “this is a fact”, it means it has physical form.

The pain you feel is not an object. It’s an experience. Again, that does not translate to “that’s your opinion”. It is real, it simply is not a physical object.

Objective and Subjective are both real. They’re mind and matter, not opinions and facts.

Seems my brain autofilled the concept in, with the post image being confused why someone would consider opposing morals to their own as terrible.

“Moralality is subjective” is a common way to say “Well my morals are different than yours and that’s okay” to justify immoral behavior. With the image being confused about students acknowledging morals being culturally formed, while not entertaining debate on their own morals.

Yes, morals are a subjective thing that only exist with a mind to perceive them.

That doesn’t mean there aren’t right or wrong morals. That doesn’t mean anyone should entertain debate over the morality of whether, say for example, white supremacy is “just an opinion, bro”. There’s nothing confusing about acknowledging that it’s a mindset caused by culture, and also viewing it as a “moral monstrosity”.

… I’m also posting these ramblings half asleep.

The keyword there is experience.

You are a subject. Suffering isn’t an object, it’s a feeling. A concept.

Subjective doesn’t mean “not real”. It’s something that needs a subject to exist. The suffering, just like morals, do exist. They are real, they can be measured, they can be discussed, they have real effects.

What makes them subjective isn’t “well that’s like, just your opinion, man”, it’s the fact that without a subject to experience them, they would cease to exist.

I think I just ate the onion.

The misunderstanding I see here is in the definition of “subjective”.

Subjective is often used interchangeably with opinion. And people can certainly have different opinions.

But the subjective that is meant is that morals don’t exist without a subject, aka a mind to comprehend them.

A rock exists whether or not a mind perceives the rock. The rock is objective. It is a physical object.

The idea that it is wrong to harm someone for being different is subjective. It is an idea. A thought. The thought does not exist without a mind.

So yes. Morals are all subjective. Morals do not exist in the physical world. Morals are not objects, they do not objectively exist. They exist within a subject. Morals subjectively exist.

That does not mean that any set of morals is okay because it’s just an opinion, bro. Because it’s not just an opinion. Those subjective values effect objective reality.

I still think Alaska should just… be a part of Canada? Just geographically speaking. I see that it’s like, literally in Canada. Makes no sense to me for it to be United States territory.

Forget that stupid 51st state thing. How about the US reverses and goes down to 49 states instead?

Disclaimer that I know nothing about (and therefore have no grudges against nor affinity for) Alaska, and I live in the US.

Going to vouch for this game. I’ve been really enjoying it.

Best experienced without spoilers. Don’t even look up the creatures if you can resist.

You are not a hero, you’re are a small animal in a living ecosystem.

She had a golden chance to demand a recount. And chose to roll over and play dead.

I can’t say I’m not disappointed. Because I am.

On days off I do tend to just forget to eat until late afternoon. Shaking only happens when I do that, and goes away after eating. So yes, by that point my sugar is probably terrible.

On days where I know I’ll be doing a lot of physical activity early, I do purposely not eat for that weird ‘haven’t eaten yet’ boost until early-mid afternoon when it wears off.

That I was being complacent to support animal cruelty just because I liked egg salad and cream cheese.

I was vegetarian for 7 years. I thought that only obvious things like meat and leather involved animal cruelty.

I was very wrong. And when people showed me I was wrong, I took a good while to process it. “But the cow needs to be alive for milk. But the chicken needs to be alive for eggs. Surely it’s not THAT bad”.

It’s a lot worse than that bad. Once it fully got through my skull just what kind of cruel practices were involved, not by choice l, but by industry NECESSITY, with the animal products that felt safe, I broke down crying while I was trying to reconcile the fact that I was letting my taste buds drive me to support terrible things.

I did finally quit. These days I don’t really miss much, food wise. And life lesson wise, it helps enable me to be a less unethical consumer. A store/product is involved with something morally terrible, like donating a lot of money to fascism? Welp, bye! No more money for you from me!

It’s been a pretty good alternative for me! I can browse on mobile without seeing a single ad.

I knew that new “no upvoting ‘violent’ content thing sounded sus. It reeked of trying to silence support for Luigi.

Beans and jeans!

I wonder how resistant to that Lemmy will be, with the whole federation thing. Harder to ban it when it’s not just one domain.

For whatever reason I am physically stronger and have more stamina before I eat. As soon as I have breakfastlunchdinner, I lose that.

Up to a certain point, of course. That point being “Oh I am shaking. I guess I forgot I need food for too long again”.

I feel bad that this made me laugh.

I uh… I already started boycotting them a few weeks ago because I found out they donate red.

Figuring out where to get random goods while ditching Target, Walmart, AND Best Buy is going to force me to learn things for sure.

I hope they don’t. Please see straight through this giant toddler and show him that actions have consequences. Do not negotiate.

Teach him a lesson that the US is refusing to teach him.

I’ve heard a joke that utilizes a dollar boll for the execution normally. A challenge to find a bird, a National monument, a dairy product, and an award-winning film on the dollar.

The joke is not legal to do. The first two are obvious and legal.

1. An eagle
2. The picture on the back
3. Half & Half (tear it in half)
4. Gone with the Wind (throw the pieces in the air)

Not something people could feasibly do since it’s an expensive AND illegal joke, but would still be funny.

In a similar vein: they promote a redefined version of asexuality that can end in more people than ever thinking asexual people are just picky and will be happy to do it for their partner and/or “can be fixed”.

The more the redefinition leaks into the real world, the more people once considered broken who were finally starting to be accepted as normal will end up dealing with forced consent via peer pressure and corrective rape.

No means NO, and that was starting to be understood for what it was. With the redefinition of asexual into “No means I have quirky requirements that The One will have”, it ends in real harm for actual no means NO people.

So yes. Real life harm can be caused by toxic gatecrashing. And people causing it call the ones at risk names for the terrible sin of not wanting to be taken as a joke in reality. Literal insult added to injury.